Talk:2019 World Rally Championship

Entry table

If you want to revert the table format, you need a new consensus. 1.129.105.55 (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Rally. Read it over! Unnamelessness proposes the table. Kovpastish is neutral and. Tvx1 is against. This is not consensus. The problem is, that in 2018 and 2017 seasons You add your key and add manufacturer entries in the table, but You DO not add the private entries (Valeriy Gorban MINI), but in 2019 You are putting even these private entries such as Grönholm's GRX Team, Janne Tuohino private entry etc in the same table with the manufacturers! If now Gorban with his MINI will take part of some rally, MINI will be in the same table with official manufacturers.

Table as it is works well. Media and people are interested manufacturers drivers. All media writes is about which team hired which driver. So it is logical to have manufacturers entries in the main table and private entries in the other table! --Klõps (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

First of all, you need to stop edit-warring. Secondly, you need a consensus.

"Unnamelessness proposes the table. Kovpastish is neutral and. Tvx1 is against."

And I supported it. With no significant opposition at the time and no opposition since it was introduced, edit-consensus applies.

"in 2019 You are putting even these private entries such as Grönholm's GRX Team, Janne Tuohino private entry etc in the same table with the manufacturers!"

And clearly distinguishing between which entries are eligible for manufacturer points and which are not.

"Table as it is works well."

Except that it's full of redundant markup used to build the second table, the content of which never appears anywhere else in the article.

"If now Gorban with his MINI will take part of some rally, MINI will be in the same table with official manufacturers."

Not at all. There is nothing in the table that says "this is the manufacturer table". If Gorban enters a Mini, it will be clear to the reader that he is not competing for manufacturer points. If you took ten seconds to actually read the table, you would see that quite clearly. But instead, you revert the article on sight, then come in here and make these broad statements that show you don't understand what you're reverting. 1.129.107.50 (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it is quite opportunistic to claim an edit-consensus based on edits of a couple of days old that change a system the existed uncontested for years. Moreover, your assertion here comes over as if you think your support of the proposal outweighs any other person's opinion. As it stands now, the WT:Rally discussion does not demonstrate a consensus in favor of the change. Additionally, as a person who claims to have a form of colorblindness, you should know that relying on colored shading of cells as sole means of conveying information is a very, very bad thing do.Tvx1 00:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"I think it is quite opportunistic to claim an edit-consensus based on edits of a couple of days old that change a system the existed uncontested for years."

I have been lobbying for a single-table format for years and you know it because you have always opposed it.

"As it stands now, the WT:Rallydiscussion does not demonstrate a consensus in favor of the change."

It does not demonstrate a consensus opposed to the change, either. Indeed, some of the people who were non-committal have contributed to the single-table format instead of reverting it.

"Additionally, as a person who claims to have a form of colorblindness, you should know that relying on colored shading of cells as sole means of conveying information is a very, very bad thing do."

While I have a form of colourblindness, I also understand how colourblindness works. The shading presents no problem; it is combinations of colours that are a problem. Red alone is fine; red and green presents difficulties. You should know this because I have explained it to you in the past. The use of flagicons throughout an article is more problematic than this system. 1.129.107.201 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"Moreover, your assertion here comes over as if you think your support of the proposal outweighs any other person's opinion."

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that I participated in the discussion, which Klops was remiss in doing; based on his comment, a reader could be mistaken that only three editors took part. 1.129.107.106 (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hold Your Horses!

1. Create an account. You are on a dynamic IP. We can't follow you and see what you have said before.

2. There is no consensus. You can't claim edit consensus for an edit on system that has been used for years over a number of articles on edit that has been made few days ago. In the discussion at WRC project Someone in a lengthy discussion made a suggestion. One user was neutral one was against. You (IP) did not give your opinion at all! For consensus the question must be clear and it must have some support.

3. Your edits are inconsistent. In 2018 season You only moved Sordo and Serderidis to the entries eligible to score manufacturer points table adding the key and colour background note that they after all aren't eligible. That's why I reverted them back to before Your edits! But in 2019 You already want to add all the drivers to one table which has not been discussed at all!

4. You are edit warring. I will restore the table. Please, if you want to change anything make a clear proposal in the talk before! --Klõps (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"There is no consensus."

There was no opposition. Editors do not need to establish a consensus in advance of making a change.

"You are edit warring. I will restore the table."

That's the very definition of edit-warring.

It is quite clear from some of your comments that you don't even understand what you're reverting given that you have repeatedly incorrectly described what the table is doing.

"But in 2019 You already want to add all the drivers to one table which has not been discussed at all!"

It was discussed at the WikiProject, but again, you didn't read the discussion. An example of what a colour-coded table would look like was put forward, but you thought it was just for non-manufacturer entries put forward by manufacturer teams.

"Please, if you want to change anything make a clear proposal in the talk before!"

Here's one: you should stop editing the article. It's clear you either don't understand what is being discussed, or you are not trying to and are simply revertimg edits you don't like on sight. 1.129.107.106 (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am going to be enabling you with this, but here is an outline of what the table is: the table should be for all RC1 entries—all World Rally Cars, both pre- and post-2017 designs. Cars that are eligible to score manufacturer points have a white background in the rounds column; cars that are ineligible have a shaded red background.

This change was put forward because there was no value in having two tables. The markup required to create a second table is extensive and redundant and the content of the table is rarely brought up again elsewhere in the article.

More importantly, the split table format is a bad hangover from years like 2006 when there were complex rules regarding entry eligibility. Those complex rules no longer apply, so there is no need for a split table format.

One table for all RC1 entries suits the needs of the article. If there is a distinction that needs to be made, such as manufacturer points eligibility, it can be done within that table. A second table for the purposes of making that distinction is totally unnecessary. 1.129.107.106 (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Something that happened in the discussion with minimal reaction from other editors is not consensus. Edits that You are making were not discussed. The discussion was about Sordos situation (at one rally he was entered by Hyundai as non manufacturer driver). No one told that same would be done with private entries (Tuohino, Miele, GRX Team). You are edit warring to make things the way You wish. I have been restoring the edit consensus that has been with the tables for years. The tables have been so for Years. So If You wish to change something start a new thread and make short and clear post about what you wish to change. Now You are making different changes on different seasons. --Klõps (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit consensus restored. Do not change it without discussion. --Klõps (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's find a solution Here. Klõps (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"Something that happened in the discussion with minimal reaction from other editors is not consensus."

Actually, it is: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus."

"The tables have been so for Years."

That's not an argument. This whole thing stinks of you complaining that a discussion was had without you. 1.144.105.6 (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Any edit that is not disputed or reverted... as it is Your edits were reverted and disputed. They are also not the consensus. That's what I have been trying to tell You! Instead of attacking me try to focus discussing what You wish to change. And do create an account. Your dynamic IP makes it hard follow, You do edit a lot. --Klõps (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The edits have been disputed and reverted by two editors now, so you cannot cling to editconsensus anymore. It's certainly not a justification for the edit-warring you engaged in. For the record, Klöps, this IP has an account. It's Prisonermonkeys and they can no longer access that account.Tvx1 18:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Klõps - User:Tvx1 is right. They have an account. If they have lost their password, they should create a new account. User:Prisonermonkeys - Create and declare a new account. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Gentlemen drivers in World Rally Cars?

Now, I'm aware that, in the entry list column, we have all drivers who are using World Rally Cars in there, and that does make sense, because it is the highest class of rally cars in the World Rally Championship. One thing I'm beginning to understand less and less is why we include gentlemen rallyists in this table, who are using previous-generation World Rally Cars. These guys do not have seeded priority in the entry lists, and they're not really notable. Look at these four French drivers from Tour de Corse's entry list. They aren't really recognized as important in any case, but they're still being put there because they use a WRC-labelled car. I'm not saying pre-2017 World Rally Cars shouldn't be present in the entry list, I'm just wondering why these entrants who aren't acknowledged as important are still being included.

They are still WRC entries. This is the article on the WRC, so we list all the WRC entries. All forms of motorsports have lesser important or remarkable entries, but that doesn't mean we ignore them. All of them are eligible to score points and one of them, Janne Tuohino, actually did do so. That makes them more than important enough to be listed.Tvx1 11:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The table really should be a summary of notable entrants that supports rather than replaces the prose. And in cases like Janne Tuohino, he entered WRC machinery and scored points, and so is notable. Then you have Kalle Rovanperä, Jan Kopecký and Mads Østberg who have scored points, but do not appear in the entry table because they are not in top-tier cars. And then there is Robert Simonetti, who scored no points but is in the entry table because he is in an ex-WRC car (that at this point is more than three years old and there is no development program in place for pre-2017 cars) despite scoring no points. If I created an article for Simonetti, it would likely be deleted for lack of notability (as far as I can tell, he's a regular in the French national championship).

It seems very backwards Simonetti, a (virtually) unknown driver in an outdated car gets included in the entry lists, but that same that list omits Rovanperä, who has only missed a full WRC start because he doesn't have a road licence; Kopecký, who has won ERC and WRC-2 titles; and Østberg, who has won a WRC rally. If I remember rightly, we originally included drivers in old WRC cars as a compromise because of the WRC Trophy, but the Trophy has since been dropped, more 2017-spec cars have become available and the FIA relaxed the restrictions on privateers entering 2017-spec cars.

Maybe we should be looking at limiting the entry table to manufacturer entries (and full-season privateers like Kimi Räikkönen and ICE1 Racing circa 2009), and addressing notable non-manufacturer entries (Tuohino, Katsuta, Grönholm, etc) through prose. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Manufacturers Table Third Row

Should the third rows in the manufacturers' championship table for entrants that have run three cars at an event be removed?

I think they should. The rules state that only two results for the manufacturers' championship can be scored per rally. So I think we should only list those results that were actually credited for that championship. It is the championship result table after all. If one wants to find out what the individual entrants did, we have the drivers' and co-drivers' championships tables for that. The row of mostly NC's in the manufacturers' championship table is just confusing.Tvx1 10:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

So am I. Per the rule says two best cars score points for manufacturers. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, look. This again.

No, they should not be removed. Those crews are eligible to score WCM points when a rally begins. They are ineligible to score points when the rally ends. To remove the third row implies that they were never eligible to score points, which is patently untrue.

We used to have an additional column in the table that assigned results to individual entries. But then some idiot decided that column was unnecessary and rearranged the table based on Formula 1 results. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

As has been explained to you many times, the claim that removing the third row implies they were never eligible to score points is what is actually untrue. The entry lists shows them black and white as eligible to score manufacturer's points and the absence of the third row in the results table doesn't change that in any way. Similarly the claim that results were assigned to individual entries is also wrong. They were assigned to numbers and these were actually frequently used by different crews throughout the season. And the decision to remove said column was a community decision achieved through a discussion which is still visible on this talk page. As it stands, there is only one visitor of these articles that wants this third row: you. Wikipedia however operates on community decisions.Tvx1 17:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

When the number column was removed, editors insisted that it was more important for the matrix to show how a team's championship result was achieved rather than who contributed what and when. If that is the case, then you cannot overlook the fact that teams have different approaches: Citroën only have two cars, whereas Hyundai and Toyota enter three full-time and Ford has two full-time entries and one part-time. Thus, how they go about achieving their results is fundamentally different and should be reflected in the matrix.

Furthermore, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, teams could enter three cars, but only two could score points. The difference was that they had to nominate who scored points in advance of the start, whereas here it is only decided at the end. Having the same appearance between two matrices thus misrepresents the championship.

And if the row of NCs is as confusing as you claim it to be, why haven't we had problems with people constantly removing it since it was introduced in 2017? Or is this another case of you being able to psychically tell what readers are thinking? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The rule clearly points out that the two best cars score points for manufacturers, which means the third-best car contributes nothing to the manufacturers' championship. Per the FIA regulation, the points of each manufacturer is made up of the best car and the second-best car and has nothing to do with the third best car. That's how a team's championship result was achieved. This is also why the official website lists the manufacturers' championship in the form of "A+B", instead of "A+B(+0)". -- Unnamelessness (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

"which means the third-best car contributes nothing to the manufacturers' championship"

There's a big difference between contributing nothing and recording a result that did not contribute. That's what "NC" means: that the crew recorded a result, but that result was not taken into consideration due to the rules. It does not mean that they did nothing. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No quite the opposite, they do no achieve a result. They finish the rally, but do not record a result for it in the WMC. If a third car from any manufacturer finishes ahead of one of the first two cars of another manufacturer, that third car is disregarded completely and its WCM result is passed on to the next WCM eligible car. The difference you speak of is minimal and dedicating a whole row to it is just undue. And the other potential implications from removing this row are all based on the same mistaken belief that WMC table is the only thing that tells our readers how these championships devolved. That is wrong. The difference on how the manufacturers' approached things is reflected in the combination of entry lists, season reports and results tables these articles include. These other parts were different in the other years you mention and so the readers where also clearly able to see the difference. You're just massively overrating how this lone table could be interpreted. The combination of entry lists, prose AND the results tables makes it abundantly clear that some manufacturers entered three cars for the rallies. The absence of a third row in one results table does not change that at all. A championship's results table is mean to record the results credited to that championship, it should not record entries.Tvx1 11:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

"They finish the rally, but do not record a result for it in the WMC."

Which is why they are listed as "Not Classified". Omitting them entirely suggests they were never there to begin with.

"The difference on how the manufacturers' approached things is reflected in the combination of entry lists, season reports and results tables these articles include."

The reader should not need to synthesise information from various parts of the article just to understand it.

"A championship's results table is mean to record the results credited to that championship, it should not record entries."

Since you didn't bother to address these points the first time, I'll repeat them here:

First, the teams have markedly different approaches to the championship. If how they contested the championship is so important, then showing their approaches should be a function of the matrix.

Secondly, in the historical context of the WRC, the third row is important because previous years have used different rules. Teams used to be able to enter three crews in a rally, but they had to nominate two to score points before the start. Peugeot used to hire Gilles Panizzi for tarmac rallies because he was a tarmac specialist

Stop treating these articles like Formula 1 articles. Just because editing decisions worked there, that doesn't mean they will automatically work elsewhere. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't follow Formula-1 nor look at those articles. But for this championship it does not really matter if "somebody" scored 0 points or was not it the start at the first place. Entry list already gives info about the number of entrants. Points eligibility is not the point of this wikitable. To remind, we had some discussion here and here - with lots of different proposals. How come you just now come up with this one without somesort of agreement?

"editors insisted that it was more important for the matrix to show how a team's championship result was achieved rather than who contributed what and when" - with your edit, it still did not show that. Basically you want to show that some teams have two drivers while some have 3. Didn't you also want to show the driver, but ruled out {{Hover title}}? Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

If the matrix is intended to show how a team scored its championship result, then it needs to show the differences in how the teams approached the championship. Limiting the table to two rows regardless of the actual number of entries implies that all teams only entered two crews in the first place, which is patently untrue. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Not it doesn't imply that all. That claim is what is patently untrue. The entry list shows all manufacturer-points entries very cleary. No synthesizing is need in any form. The information is there in black and white. Omitting those who were not credited with a result does not imply anything but that they weren't credited with a result. A results matrix its for results, not entries.Tvx1 11:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

"The entry list shows all manufacturer-points entries very cleary."

No, it shows which entries are eligible to score points, not which entries did score points.

"A results matrix its for results, not entries."

And "NC" means that they were entered, eligible to score points and recorded a result but that result did not contribute championship points. It's a very different meaning to other motorsports like Formula 1 where "NC" means a driver was running at the end of the race, but did not complete enough laps to be classified. Outside WRC articles, "NC" is a very rare field to use in results matrices.

What would you suggest we do if Tänak scores a result for Toyota, but Latvala and Meeke retire? Under your system, we would have the result and a retirement recorded, but it is not clear what happened to the third entry. You cannot assume they retired—they could have withdrawn, been disqualified or excluded, or retired. Your proposal only works if every team records two points-scoring results.

And you still haven't addressed the fact that teams approach the championship in different ways. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it shows which entries are eligible to score points, not which entries did score points.

Exactly. And that is the only thing they need to do. The entry list shows who entered for which championship at each round, the results tables show who scored points, or rather results, for that championship. Anything else is beyond their scope. Use prose to provide context.

And "NC" means that they were entered, eligible to score points and recorded a result but that result did not contribute championship points. It's a very different meaning to other motorsports like Formula 1 where "NC" means a driver was running at the end of the race, but did not complete enough laps to be classified. Outside WRC articles, "NC" is a very rare field to use in results matrices. What would you suggest we do if Tänak scores a result for Toyota, but Latvala and Meeke retire? Under your system, we would have the result and a retirement recorded, but it is not clear what happened to the third entry. You cannot assume they retired—they could have withdrawn, been disqualified or excluded, or retired. Your proposal only works if every team records two points-scoring results.

What on earth does it matter for the manufacturers' championship that a car which wasn't taking into account for that championship retired, was disqualified or excluded or withdrew. It didn't affect that championship for that round in any way or form. All the extra information you mention, like a team's approach, are things we have prose for. The manufacturers championship tables is no there to give our readers a full report of the season. It's only function is to show the results that counted towards that championship. Besides the drivers' and co-drivers' championship already show what happened to all the entries.Tvx1 13:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

You cannot show up two months after the discussion has run its course, declare that a consensus has been formed, impose it on the article and blatantly misrepresent the discussion as if there is a consensus and a lone voice of dissent. Especially when you criticise me for doing something similar elsewhere. You have tried to get this change approved multiple times in the past two years, all to no avail. It's time to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse.

"It didn't affect that championship for that round in any way or form."

Actuslly, it does. If a team entered three cars, but then withdrew one, it affects how they can score points; if one of the remaining cars retires, they don't have the third car to score a result. Besides, all of the teams approach the championship differently. Citroën enter two cars. Toyota enter three. M-Sport enter two or three. If the WCM results matrix is supposed to show how a team scored its results, then it needs to address the fact that different teams score their results in different ways. Limiting each team to two entries in the WCM table completely changes the reader's perception of the championship. Furthermore, in the 1990s teams could enter three cars, but had to nominate which two would score before the event. If one retired, the third car couldn't score in its place. Here, all three cars are eligible to score points until the final results are known. Your proposal implies that only the cars that scored points were eligible to score. And before you say it, you need something more than "no, it doesn't imply that" as an objection.

There is no reason for this change. You lobbied to have the number column removed for reasons that were unclear (apparently because F1 articles do it, WRC articles need to do it, too), and the net result is that now you have rows of NCs that you don't like. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I have raised this issue at DRN since it clearly is not going away. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The trip to WP:DRN did not yield any different results. And I did not misrepresent anything. This discussion does not feature anyone agreeing with your stance. I just saw this discussion as new, clean attempt to get a consensus on this subject, instead of merely being a continuation of the former. But even if you do consider them together there is STILL a clear support for the proposal. You're still in the clear minority. And your arguments have been refuted time and time again. The implication of them not been eligible to score points simply does not exists because the entry list explicitly states that they did and the proposed edit would add a sentence above the table that clearly states only the best two results are actually credited. Likewise the entry lists already gives a full picture of their approaches and the prose can give even more context. This has been repeated to you over and over again. Moreover, talking about "misrepresenting facts" you take the clear lead on that here. Firstly, you claim that there was no positive progress in getting this approval approved, yet there is clear support for it here and this isn't a dead horse at all. Secondly, you claim that I lobbied to have the number column removed, which is blatantly untrue. Another user lobbied for that and I merely supported that proposal. This has to stop now. You cannot unilaterally block a proposal from being executed. There is clear support for it. Last time I checked consensus is still not unanimity. We don't need your approval.Tvx1 15:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

"this isn't a dead horse at all"

More than two months had passed between the last comment in the discussion and your decision to apply the change despite your claim of having a consensus. Evidently it was not as strong as you thought it was, or else it would have been applied at the time. I think two months of complete silence is more than enough time to warrant revisiting the discussion before makimg changes.

"We don't need your approval."

No, but what you do need is a clear internal logic between articles. You have been lobbying for this change on and off for over eighteen months, but have not one addressed the fact that previous years have used a similar scoring system with a few key differences that should be reflected in the structure of the matrix. All you have ever done is said "no, it does not imply that/need that" and assumed you have adequately made your point when you have not.

"talking about "misrepresenting facts" you take the clear lead on that here"

I'm not the one who pretended that an entire discussion did not exist and then claimed it was a case of one against many when diffs from that discussion proved otherwise. You always do this. There's one set of rules that you follow and one set of rules that you have for everyone else. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The differences in the scoring rules can still be reflected in multiple parts of the article without the need of the third row in that table. We explain the scoring systems in just about all motorsports article. The entry lists and report prose are more than sufficient to explain and give context to the approaches. The results tables are not intended to be full season reports. They only need to show the results which actually count. Regardless, you cannot set the conditions on how a consensus can be reached. You do not own these articles. Wikipedia is a community project and you have to respect the community preference. Lastly, as I have explained before, I do not all pretend the earlier discussion did not exist. We simply disagree on it's effect on the whole. You consider it the most important part and overvalue it so much so that you consider it leading and that it tips the entire case in your favor, whereas I see it more as an old, failed attempt at the proposal with this discussion being a fresh attempt under the principle that consensus can change. You yourself had a number of changes implemented in the past under the principle after earlier failed attempts. So it would be basic respect to other contributors if you gave them that same courtesy here. Moreover though, even if you simply add up both discussion it still leaves a clear support in favor of the proposal. It gives you just one person agreeing with you, with doesn't even remotely put you in the clear majority. We thus simply disagree on the earlier discussion's value. And I don't know why your reading of them is by definition te correct one and yours the wrong one.Tvx1 11:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Rally Estonia

Hi Everybody, I was wondering if we should possibility think about including some Rally Estonia details as a non-championship rally. Especially as the WRC are promoting this event as the "first-ever Promotional Rally", all manufacturers are sending at least one car, and WRC+ are covering some of the stages live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by F1season (talk • contribs) 18:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

"Calendar expansion" section mentions Rally Estonia very briefly. That would be the place to write more. Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

What does "Promotional Rally" even mean?

Whatever the case, Rally Estonia is not a part of the championship and so should not be explored in detail. The only way it has affected the championship is indirectly; i.e. through Evans' injury. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)